This chart is a classic example of wishful thinking and selective scholarship. I found the chart posted on the Fighting Fundamental Forums here. It is illustrative of a pervasive problem in KJVOism. The selective use of facts to present the greatest possible “defense” or “proof” of their position. After they have painted the evidence with a wide brush, then they are ready to defend their position. This is unscholarly and dishonest, but sadly it is all too common.

Take a good look at this chart, and then read my response to it that I gave in the thread on the forums mentioned above. [You will actually be able to see it easier by clicking here–where it was originally posted.]

This chart upon first study appears very scholarly. It presents a clear case for the superiority of the KJV. Most KJVO’s who see this will print it and put it in a prominent place. “Ahh!!, a key reference for future discussions or thought!” they will think. But actually, this chart is symptomatic of the problem rampant in KJVO circles–selective scholarship! The chart simply parrots facts from other KJVO books by authors who got their facts from other KJVO books whose authors got them from who knows where. The chart (or the books it is based on) picks and chooses among the facts to decide which ones to present. It sadly paints the case to make it look convincing. I want to briefly point out some inconsistencies and inaccuracies in this chart, just to showcase how the chart does not tell the whole story and does not present all the facts.

The chart shows 2 text families, but in reality there are three or four (or more). The Western and Cesarean families are not mentioned.

The chart dates the Peshitta at 150 A.D., but modern scholarship is nearly unanimous in dating the Peshitta sometime after 420 A.D. This fact is not noted in the chart, and should change the weight of that evidence. Further, the chart does not point out that the Peshitta has multiple readings which favor the critical texts over the TR. For instance it has \”God\” rather than \”Son\” at John 1:18; it has a relative pronoun in 1 Tim. 3:16 rather than the word “God”; and it lacks entirely John 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37; I John 5:7 (and other passages found in the TR).

The chart counts the Greek mss but not the Latin mss. While a majority of Greek mss support the Byzantine family, a huge majority of the Latin mss favor a text more similar to the critical text of today. Further, the Latin mss outnumber Greek mss nearly 3 to 1!

Also, the chart oversimplifies the data by claiming 99% or so of mss clearly support the Byzantine text. It does not deal with factors such as the time period of those mss or the location. The vast majority of mss that are still extant are from the same locale and time period (9th to 14th centuries in the Easter Roman or Byzantine Empire). During this time period virtually no one else was using Greek as a language, hence no desire or need to copy the Greek mss outside of Byzantium’s general area. Fewer mss remain from other locales and time periods and the statistics for which of those other kinds of mss support the Byzantine text are much less favorable to the Majority/TR text (KJVO) postition.

The chart claims the Waldensian’s Bible was based on the Traditional Text. No evidence supports this. All the evidence we have indicates the Waldensian’s Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate. KJVO-ists may wish that the Waldensian’s Bible was a Traditional Text Bible, they may even suspect it was, but with no evidence they cannot claim it was. Or worse, present it as fact, like this chart does.

The chart points out that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus mss disagree over 3000 times and indicates this means they are bad mss. It fails to point out that scholars view these differences as a testimony to how significant it truly is when these two old mss agree in places. The agreement attests to a single text type much older than either of those very old mss.

The chart claims Wescott and Hort were apostate, but does not mention that Erasmus was not only “partial to Romish ways”, he never left the Roman church! He even publicly debated Martin Luther over his views.

The chart classifies the Vulgate as Alexandrian, yet it fails to mention that several readings of the TR (and KJV) come strictly from the Vulgate, like 1 John 5:7, Rev. 22:19 (“book of life”), and Acts 9:6.

The chart does not mention that the Byzantine/Traditional text which is the Majority, differs greatly with the TR–well over a thousand times!

Another inconsistency is that while the chart takes the time to mention that the Vatican mss has the Apocrypha, it does not mention that the KJV 1611 had the apocrypha also!

The chart ends with 1611, but the KJV was revised as late as 1769. Further, the NKJV is a translation from basically the exact same text as the KJV. Due to the NKJV’s footnotes (which are not in every edition of the NKJV), the chart relegates it to the Alexandrian column. However, the KJV 1611 had footnotes, many of which pointed out alternate readings, or pointed out that some mss do not contain certain verses. In fact, the KJV translators defend this practice of using footnotes to point out alternate readings in their preface to the KJV 1611.

Well, more could be said, I’m sure. But this should suffice for demonstrating that this is a slanted and biased presentation. It is not an honest presentation of the facts. Rather it is a work of selective scholarship.

Note: in the comment thread on the forum, Thomas Cassidy (who actually prefers the KJV) pointed out some other inaccuracies of the chart. You can read that thread here.

âˆ¼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of Godâˆ¼ Eph. 4:3,13 \”¢ Rom. 15:5-7

There’s a difference between a “KJV-only” position and a “Textus Receptus represents the inspired, preserved line of God’s Word” position.

If you don’t cotton to Elizabethan English fine, but don’t distort the position of your opposition. And this continual insinuating that TR people are bumkins or morons is just embarassing for your side. You come across as Roman Catholic priests or apologists. Ever spend much time in their company? They don’t exactly light up any rooms with their intellect…

Your last sentence: “to those confused”… This is the seminary/intellectual vanity that is dripping off the James White (types) side of all this.

Here’s what it comes down to: you’re defending manuscripts that weren’t used by Christians until some 19th century atheists and spiritualists decided the time was ripe to spring them on sleeping Christians and innocents. The deletions and distortions your manuscripts contain will never be accepted by Christians who know God was and is very capable of shepherding and protecting His Word for His elect to come into contact with and be saved by.

Your argument comes down to: “Well, even if the corrupt manuscripts delete and distort things you can STILL get those things from other parts of the Bible.” Obviously there are many problems with that. First off, why should I have anything to do with a version based on corrupt manuscripts when I can get the real, complete thing. Second, the deletions and distortions and general corruptions are progressive, depending on what group or new generation of vain scholarship decides God’s Word will state.

Dr. Joel R. Beeke has come out as advocating the retaining of the King James Version, by the way. I notice he’s yet to be called ‘confused’ by James White and those types.

I’m a Calvinist – a classical covenant theology, doctrines of grace, five solas Calvinist – and I wouldn’t touch the modern versions based on the corrupt manuscripts. It’s not just anti-Calvinst fundamentalist types that see the truth on the manuscripts issues and see the inspiration and worth of the great Reformation era translations.

I’m more hardcore for the trans. of the AV1611 – it’s pedigree in the line of English translation of God’s word and it’s literary virtues – than the late Dr. Letis was, but if I was only arguing for the worth of the TR over Vaticanus and SinaÃ¯ticus I’d be just as hardcore. The Word of God is the foundation of the faith. What the 19th century fellows were able to do without firing nary a shot was rather bizarre, but God’s elect know the voice of the Shepherd, and can’t be fooled…

You stick with your Vatican and Arian versions. You sound James Whitish on the subject. (That’s not good. But he DOES have a ‘Dr.’ in front of his name! From Dr. Stripmall’s diplomas. Anything to get that ‘Dr.’ before your name, eh? It’s real important.)

As a priest and a prophet and a king I’ll go with what the Holy Spirit is telling me. (I don’t get a real good smell from that Vatican and other manuscript, you know, the one with the Shepherd of Hermas in it…) Oh, and, by the way, when are you all going to insert that Shepherd of Hermas into the canon? I hear its in the dock. And why not? Hey, maybe even ‘better’ manuscripts will be found sometime, and maybe it will make the Bible EVEN SHORTER! Then you not only won’t have to read ‘difficult’ Elizabethan English, but you won’t have to read as much!

By the way, I’ll keep waiting on James White and his followers to declare Joel Beeke “confused”. He’ll have to erase all those blurb recommendations by Beeke from his book covers.

And have the courage of your convictions on this issue and get to rewriting the Westminster Standards. It looks kind of bad that they reference biblical verses that God had in there by mistake…

First, know that all opinions are welcome here. I respect differing opinions, in fact, debate would be welcome on this and many points!

For several years I thought of myself more as TR-only than KJV-only, so I understand how you try to distinguish the two. I vehemently disagreed with those who argued that the KJV was inspired and that we did not need to look at the Greek (TR). Yet every TR onlyist I knew of (except perhaps Ted Letis and the like) did not permit the NKJV and held to the KJV only (although they may have allowed a hypothetical future TR-based Bible). Further the TR-only position did not merely hold that the TR “represents” the preserved “line” of the Bible, but rather said the TR “was equal to” the exact Words of God that had been preserved perfectly for us. In this sense, the TR-only position while somewhat more scholarly and reasonable still is solidly KJV-only.

Also, please note, that I do not equate “KJV-only” with an extreme Ruckmanite position. Again, I was KJV-only but anything but Ruckmanite. They hold the English corrects the Greek, and I would aver that most KJV-onlies do not agree with that position.

I must say here, that perhaps you represent more of a Trinitarian Bible Society postion on the TR. I am not exactly sure of their take on it, perhaps you could enlighten me. I came from within a Dean Burgon Society-form of TR-onlyism and that is what I am addressing.

SK, I do not think I am misrepresenting my opposition. Please show how I am. I am not claiming they are morons or bumpkins. I am claiming that they selectively pick and choose among the evidence in presenting the best case they can for their position. They get to use history and facts when it bolsters their position and when it doesn’t they can glibly ignore the evidence claiming a faith-based position. It is the best of both worlds for them, really. In fact, I think this happens often by default. They read a book which is based on other books and somewhere back someone either ignorantly or willfully practiced “selective scholarship”.

I hope you will stick around. Having been a KJV/TR-onlyist, I hope my posts come across as more graceful than those who have never actually held this position. I am firm in my stand, but I am sympathetic to those confused by the conflicting information and strong-sounding claims that swirl over this issue.

Many excellent things there. Don’t just say “I use to be KJV-only.” That has no meaning. That’s like atheists who say: “I used to be a Calvinist.” Great. Get up-to-speed with a good source like the above. White especially is not honest on the manuscripts issues. There is also much vain intellectualism being displayed. I mean, I’ve debated James Spurgeon on various other issues, and I really don’t need him to tell me the apostle Paul didn’t read the KJV, you know? I could easily play my own cards regarding background in literature and so forth, but I don’t. I don’t need to. Don’t have any vain need to.

Thank you, Father, for giving me your word, pure and whole, in the AV1611. I approach it, engage it, absorb it, get understanding from it, with humility. It corrects me, I don’t correct it (thank God)…

Sorry, my bad. Yes some are confused. Some, like I was, do not believe they are confused and firmly disagree with me. Due to what I believe is the complexity of the issue, I am more than sympathetic to those who disagree with me. In fact, you have every right to disagree. I think you are wrong, and you think I am. Let us just proceed from this point charitably with as much meekness as possible.

I can understand you being upset with “vanity”, but often “vanity” is in the eye of the beholder. Now on to the points you bring up.

First, you claim it was atheists and spiritualists who sprung Vaticanus and Sinaiticus upon unsuspecting Christendom. To be brief, I think you are very wrong here. Many of the principle movers in the development of textual criticism and the consequent acceptance of a revised text were noted for their orthodoxy and piety–men such as John Mill, Johann Bengel (who is called the “father of modern textual criticism”), and Samuel Tregelles, among others. Wescott and Hort are falsely charged with heresy, by the way. Read Wescott’s commentaries, they are hardly unorthodox. Again, notice in the post these comments are under, that Erasmus was Roman Catholic through and through and yet this does not, to be sure, discredit the TR. So to be fair, any leanings toward Rome which Hort or Wescott may have evidenced is hardly cause for discrediting their text. In fact their text substantially agrees with Tregelles’ text–who was a Plymouth Brethren and very orthodox.

What is worth mentioning here, is the fact that textual critics already had concluded that certain high profile TR readings were errant, like 1 Tim. 3:16, 1 John 5:7, John 1:18 and others–even before Sinaiticus was unearthed!! Check out Tregelles’ arguments for the moder critical text readings on these passages before Sianiticus was found, as shown in this article.

SK, let me make this clear, I do not think God was unable to shepherd and watch over His text. He did! He has simply not chosen to preserve it perfectly in one manuscript for us. Read this post of mine for clarification.

The readings of the critical text are widely attested in many locations and in many time periods throughout history. Notice in my post you are commenting under, that the early Peshitta, a Syrian translation, did not include Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7, or John 7:53-8:11–this text is even claimed to support the Byzantine text readings generally! The TR is a text form which never before existed as such. It was based on seven mss used by Erasmus (along with his extensive textual notes that he kept) in haste as he was rushed by his printer to complete his text before a rival text was published. Erasmus himself says he backtranslated from the Latin in a few places. Christians had been using the Latin language prior to the availability of the TR. Only a few scholars like Erasmus even studied Greek. And the Latin corresponds more closely to the modern Critical text in many places than the Byzantine text/TR. The modern Majority Text which attempts to reproduce the Byzanitine text type in one text differs significantly (almost 2,000 times) from the TR. All of this is to say that the TR cannot claim to be the single text all of Christendom held to until the 19th century. Rather it is one version of the text which was held to for a time, as it was the best available printed text. It does not properly represent the majority of mss, but rather represents a sub category of the Byzantine text type.

As for the doctrinal changes, etc., they are either deletions by the critical text or additions by the TR. Remember the TR was the new text on the block in the 1500s. And as it was the best Greek text widely available it remained the one the Church used. But all throughout the centuries Chruch leaders have recognized that there are errors in the TR needing correcting. Men like Luther, Calvin, Wesley, the 19th century Baptist Theologians like Armitage, Broadus, and A.T. Robertson, the famous preachers Charles Spurgeon, R.A. Torrey,–all of these men and more certainly were elect and could identify God’s voice. Yet they accepted the modern texts or recognized that the TR was not perfect and in need of correction. In fact, even Burgon admitted this–very clearly in fact. I recommend the articles listed in my sidebar and over at my new KJV Only Debate Resource Center. I would especially recommend the book One Bible Only? Examining the Claims for the King James Bible edited by Drs. Roy Beacham and Kevin Bauder.

I think the KJV is inferior to modern versions like the ESV, yet I think the differences are not so major as to preclude the use of the KJV. I would also say that the Elizabethan language is a big impediment to properly understanding what the KJV translators themselves were trying to convey–at least for virtually any modern American.

I have been busy today (I work nights so I had to sleep too). Sorry I did not respond sooner.

I think you sound somewhat cynical and high handed yourself. You sneeringly infer that Dr James White hasn’t earned his Doctorate. That is an unscholarly and underhanded arguing tactic.

Just because a mss which supports the critical text I favor has the Shepherd of Hermas does not mean the text it contains of Matthew or John is in error. Further, the KJV retained the Apocrypha. That does not invalidate the KJV.

I read the article you linked to. Thomas Holland dodges some of the questions, by the way. I found his answer to this question intriguing:

Question: “15. Is it not rediculous to suggest that when the TR dissagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn’t? Is this not the ultimate example of “translation worship”? (Reject the original in favour of the translation)”

Excerpt from Holland’s Answer: “So it is with the different Greek editions which have been grouped as the Textus Receptus Greek Text. There are some textual differences between the Greek texts of Desiderius Erasmus, Theodore Beza, Robert Estienne (or Stephanus), and the Elzevir brothers. These are textual choices. Greek texts come from Greek manuscripts (and other manuscripts) to form a certain Greek text. Because manuscripts differ, Greek texts differ. These are textual choices. The KJV translators sometimes chose the Greek text of Stephanus over the text of Beza. Sometimes, based on textual choices, they even rejected the standard Greek texts in favor of a different reading (as most translators do). This is not translational worship . . . its textual criticism.”

Holland is one of the few TR/KJV Onlyists I know who has no problem with textual criticism. My question is what makes him think the KJV is as far as textual criticism needs to go? Why do we assume the choices of the KJV translators were without error?

By the way, when I claim to have been KJV only, trust me that I was a diehard. I read thousands of pages on the subject. I was aware of all the answers to difficult questions, and I was aware of the arguments we had for the superiority of the TR. In the end, however, the evidence against our position and the lack of specificity in the Bible concerning how God would preserve the Bible pushed me over the edge. I could not honestly admit the KJV or the TR (Greek) and MT (Hebrew) were inerrant. I had to admit we had no one document in any language that had all of God’s Words perfectly without ommission, addition, or error. Once I admitted that and realized that God no where promises that we would have all the words on one document, I found academic freedom to examine the arguments for the critical text again. And the rest is history.

I respect your position, but think it wrong. The evidence outside and inside the pages of Scripture is by no means conclusive enough for you to make such statements as “And what you are defending is not worthy of an elect of God.”

I mentioned Dr. Joel R. Beeke earlier. Beeke has provided help to James White in the form of providing recommendations for some of his books. White has yet to make fun of Beeke as is his usual tactic with anybody who publically shows a high valuation for anything other than the corrupt, Alexandrian manuscripts. Here are Beekes reason for retaining the KJV:

On the subject of White’s fake doctorate (and it is fake, it’s from an uncredited literal stripmall ‘seminary’ that allowed all his work for his ‘doctorate’ to consist in the latest book he’d already been working on at the time): it’s his side that routinely mocks the intellectual capabilities of TT/TR/KJV defenders. In fact, White and others like him are very much like Roman priests on this subject (which is apt considering they champion Roman Catholic approved manuscripts)…

Based on the Textus Receptus (the Greek NT), and the Masoretic Text (Hebrew OT), the KJV gives the most authentic and fullest available text of the Scriptures, with none of the many omissions and textual rewrites of the modern translations such as the Revised Standard Versions (RSV) and the NIV.

(a) Oldest Does Not Mean Best – The Westcott and Hort arguments that ‘the oldest manuscripts are the most reliable’ and that ‘age carries more weight than volume’ are not necessarily true. It could well be that the two oldest, complete manuscripts were found to be in such unusually excellent condition because they were already recognized as faulty manuscripts in their time and therefore were placed aside and not recopied until worn out as were the reliable manuscripts. This is further supported by numerous existing differences between the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts.

(b) Volume – The King James Version is based upon the Traditional Text. The vast majority of the more than 5,000 known partial and complete Greek manuscripts follow this textual reading.

(c) Church History – The ‘Received’ or ‘Ecclesiastical’ Text has been used by the church historically. The English, French, Dutch, and German Reformation churches all used Bibles based on the Traditional Text. (The Dutch ‘Statenvertaling’ is also based upon the ‘Ecclesiastic’ Text.)

[Don’t just wave this away with a flippant gesture of your hand. Also, recognize that the Word of God is to be engaged humbly, as if you are coming to something that is higher than ‘you.’ It’s not to be approached as if being weighed and measured and put in its place by a vain, intellectual approach. It’s there to be understood, yes, but the Word is not synonymous with systematic theology. ST is a discipline. The Word itself is the foundation, the raw material, and it is alive. It is living language. And it’s not something that only some self-appointed intellectual elite can understand or have opinions about (contrary to what James White explicitly states).

This is also a regeneration issue. There is no more foundational mark of being regenerate than having a deep and reverent valuation for the Word of God, and a discernment for when it is being attacked (the devil began his attack on the Word of God in the Garden and it hasn’t stopped). You currently can’t see why a Christian like myself would have nothing to do with the versions based on the corrupt manuscripts. You say: Well, not THAT much is changed! The modern versions have been what has caused the liberalism you see in the churches today. The main thing the modern versions and their corrupt manuscripts have done is to put man in the place of the Word and the Spirit. To exalt man and man’s vain intellect above the Word of God. With the modern version man dicates TO the Word of God and dicates WHAT the Word of God is and says. A regenerate Christian is God-centered. I have a Bible, as Holland says, that corrects ME, not one that ‘I’ correct. And the fact that it just so happens to be the same Bible used by Christians going back to apostolic times kind of is a big thing. I trust God, I don’t trust man – Rome, James White, 19th century liberals, whatever. I don’t trust man. I trust God. God gave his elect the Word of God. It wasn’t just discovered barely a hundred years ago…

OOPS!! I had posted a lengthy rebuttal to SK’s last comment here on 4/24, but apparently Blogger lost it somehow. I just discovered this now, and so I will try to briefly answer SK’s main points again. *Sigh* Well, here goes…

FULLNESS

This is not exactly correct. First, the Western text is longer than either the Byzantine text which the KJV is representative of, or the Alexandrian text which is more closely represented by the modern versions. Second, the charge of deleting/ommitting words from Scripture cuts both ways. Just as easily as you conclude that the modern versions delete Scripture, I can conclude that the KJV adds to Scripture. The evidence is overwhelming, for instance, that 1 John 5:7 is a late addition to Scripture. During the Trinitarian controversies in the late 400s when Athanasius was duking it out with Arius over the Trinity in various church councils and etc., the text 1 John 5:7 was NEVER mentioned. This is absolutely incredulous, were it to be a genuine Scripture. Martin Luther and Erasmus both believed 1 John 5:7 was a spurious addition to Scripture (Luther never included it in his Bible, and Erasmus said so in his textual notes). Third, there are places where the modern versions include something the KJV leaves out which would make the KJV the omitting text. See for instance, “and so we are” after “called children of God” in 1 John 3:1. Also, it is interesting to note that the Hebrew Masoretic Text omits Joshua 21:36-37. The modern versions agree with the KJV that the Hebrew was in error here.

What is happening is you are setting up the KJV as the standard arbitrarily and then condemning the modern versions for departing from that standard. There are many readings in the KJV which are demonstrably incorrect or based on the minutest evidence (some are based on zero textual evidence of any kind).

AGE

Age matters, plain and simple! KJVO-ists take great pains to prove the antiquity of Byzantine readings and then turn around and glibly declare it doesn’t matter anyway. They just blindly assume that they won’t find any mss because they have all been thumbed to death, except of course the corrupted texts. It doesn’t matter that their is no Byzantine Greek manuscript dated to the first four hundred years after Christ, even though there are scores of such texts which are seen to be Alexandrian. As for the differences between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as I mentioned before, this just shows that where these two texts agree that underlying text must be that much older. Again see this article by Dr. Dan Wallace.

VOLUME

KJVO-ists love to proclaim from the housetops that the majority of Greek texts favor the KJV! But they are strangely silent about the fact that the majority of Latin texts do not. What makes this troubling is that the Latin texts outnumber the Greek texts 3 to 1!!! In truth, when all ancient language Bible manuscripts are compared by far it is the minority that support the KJV!

Another strange thing about all this talk about majority is that by far most KJVO-ists do not uphold the Majority Text. There have been two attempts in the past 30 years to produce a Greek Text which reflects the reading of the majority of Greek texts as we know them today. This Majority Text differs with the TR in over 1800 places. This would suggest that in 1800 places the TR is based on a minority of the Greek manuscripts. Truth be told there are many readings based on only a handful of Greek manuscripts that are contained in the TR. Why do KJVO-ists so tenaciously cling to the TR? Because the KJV, which they view as perfect (in one sense or another) was translated from it.

Lastly, KJVO-ists do not tell the whole story when they declare that most Greek mss support the KJV. They do not mention some important characteristics about that majority. First, the vast majority of the majority comes from one locale (in and around Byzantium area) were produced by one church (the Greek Orthodox church which dominated the churches under the Byzantium empire–the Eastern Roman empire which lasted until AD 1453) and are from a late time period (ninth century and later). Further they do not tell you that at this period of history only people in this locale spoke Greek, and so they would of course be concerned with copying Greek Scriptures. Other Christians would copy the Scriptures in Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. The fact that a majority of Greek manuscripts are seen to be very similar should be not at all surprising since most originated under very similar circumstances. In reality this body of manuscripts presents one big witness to the text but it does not show us what other locations were using as Scripture and what other churches were using. In contrast to the Byzantine text the Alexandrian text finds representatives from many locales and early as well as late time periods and from several different churches. This is one of the reasons the Alexandrian text is given such weight by textual critics.

CHURCH HISTORY

Looking at the last paragraph above, one can see that church history before the ninth century in no way favors the Byzantine text. It was not until the TR was popularized in the 1500s that this form of text was predominant in Europe, either.

But before we go on, let us ask what does it mean that the church used a text? Does the fact that the church used the text which so happened to be printed first (Erasmus’ text) mean they necessarily agreed with each and every reading in it? In Erasmus’ notes he disputes the validity of several readings in his texts, are we to assume the church’s use of the text endorses Erasmus’ conclusions about 1 John 5:7 not being part os Scripture for instance? We know historically that there was a great demand for the Greek Text and that printing was much more costly and difficult then than now. There was not much time to devote to correcting the text and coming up with a more critical text in that era, when so many still wanted any Greek text at all to be available to them.

As the history of the church progresses we see many influential church leaders correcting the TR by way of textual notes and etc.–Luther, Calvin, Beza, and John Wesley, for instance. Wesley corrected the KJV’s text in over 10,000 places! We also see very orthodox people involved in the development of the science of textual criticism, men like John Mills, Bengel, and Samuel Tregelles. We also see solidly conservative theologians and church leaders admitting errors in the TR and recommending and using modern versions of Scripture, men like A.T. Robertson, Thomas Armitage, J. Broadus, R.A. Torrey, and even Charles Spurgeon. In fact, even John Burgon was very clear to avoid claiming perfection for the TR noting many errors which needed perfecting. Is this view of church history such that must dictate to us that the KJV is to be accepted as the only proper version since it is based on the perfect TR??

MY APPROACH

SK says I should not just “wave this away with a flippant gesture of (my) hand”. I do not belive I am. I have thoughtfully analyzed his truth claims and found them lacking. I have analyzed this debate from both sides and literally spent years thinking about these issues.

SK then says something about the Bible being What we must submit to, not what we must weigh, measure, and put in place. I agree, but he is missing something. In theology, we are to submit to the teachings of Scripture. Textual criticism is merely our ascertaining what are the correct readings of Scripture. To make textual decisions is not to exalt oneself over the Bible. In reality, textual decisions should be made in the same way theological decisions are–humbly. We should submit to the evidence we have (internal and external) and trust to God’s help in identifying the text. A view which glibly forces the evidence to speak in ways we desire is in reality the very approach which SK is condemning. And yet, such is the approach, it seems, of many KJVO-ists. They ignore evidence, assume things blindly, and twist facts all to keep their pet theories alive. This is not an honest submission to the facts of textual evidence, rather it is exalting oneself and his assumption–never stated in Scripture–that God would preserve His Words in one document over the clear evidence God left us.

REGENERATION

SK certainly is entitled to his own opinions, but I strongly disagree with him here. People on both sides of this debate have a deep and lasting reverence for Scripture and a love for God’s Word. There is much evidence to be sorted through and an environment of controversy which makes coming to a conclusion difficult. This should leave us more free to see that regenerate people may fall on either side of this debate, as there is much which is said which makes the air unclear. Scripture certainly does not speak expressly on how perfectly and in what way preservation was to be performed. And we are given no guarantees that a perfect text will exist in any language all in one manuscript or book. Indeed, millions and billions live today without a complete or an error-free Bible in their language.

I refuse to think this issue is simple enough to conclude that those who differ with me are most likely not regenerate. This is an unChristian approach, we should lovingly think the best and not assume the worst.

I hope this makes the reasons for my stand clear. I welcome any further comments and questions.

Again, sorry that I left this without an answer for so long. I thought my original answer had been posted, but apparently it had not.

answer me this tr and kjv only people….why in the new testanent does Jesus and the writter of Hebrews quote from the Lxx even when it differs from the Hebrew text and the kjv. Is Jesus a heretic? I used to be tr and kjv only unil after i learned to do my own research and changed positions. I have come to the conclusion that most kjv only advocates lie, have started a cult, are the rudest, crudest. It was when I discovered how much they fabricated and just lied about I had to give them uo